Unsurprisingly, Hollyweird has come out swinging on behalf of leftist bully Perez Hilton in his jihad against Carrie Prejean, the California beauty queen who refused to endorse homosexual "marriage."

Tinsletown took to Twitter, as the likes of Shanna Moakler, Giuliana Rancic, Holly Madison and Heidi Montag Tweeted their outrage.

Moakler, who is co-chair of the Miss California pageant, Twittered "I agree with Perez 100 [percent]."

E! News anchor Giuliana Rancic Twittered on Tuesday that "I know i'm a journalist, and i should be objective … but she is an ignorant disgrace and she makes me sick to my stomach."

All this hatred is for being willing to give up a crown before giving up her principles. But you couldn't really expect someone with her head screwed on as straight as Prejean's to get a warm reception in the cesspool moonbats have made out of Hollywood.

Comments

The modern equivalent of 'We have found a witch. May we burn her?' Surely these are conservatives in clever disguises. Liberals embrace ALL viewpoints, diversity and all that.

Posted by: Viking04 at April 26, 2009 9:37 AM

Oh come on! This was funny. Further, Funny or Die is hardly a group of B-List talent. Previously having Jack Black as Jesus! Ha! Question though, why no story on the great students of Walt Whitman High School shouting down Westboro Baptist Church idiots. For all of the Phelps Cult members actions, I am sure many here would join me in taking them on.

Of the many parodies of the original advert, I'd say the Colbert Report one is the best, although this one had its moments.

Posted by: Ben at April 26, 2009 10:02 AM

Tinsletown took to Twitter, as the likes of Shanna Moakler, Giuliana Rancic, Holly Madison and Heidi Montag Tweeted their outrage.

Who?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 26, 2009 10:03 AM

Who?

Yep, never heard of them either.

Posted by: Kevin R at April 26, 2009 10:09 AM

Modest proposal: we allow homosexual marriage, but ban protease inhibitors, and let Nature take its course. The virus has a right to live too!

And by the way, Wexelstein's demise was a blow to the anti-American left, and therefore a break for America. That hairball even voted against Gulf War I!

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 26, 2009 10:13 AM

A better proposal: Nuke the San FranFreak Show for starters then issue hunting tags for the rest.

Posted by: FREE at April 26, 2009 10:21 AM

I never heard of any of them either.

Funny thing is, her original comment was, and I paraphrase roughly: it's great that we live in a country where people can do what they want. More power to people who do what they think is best for themselves. For *ME* a marriage is between a man and a woman.

If they can't live with that, then these raving freaks spewing venom really need to take a look at themselves, because that is the absolute middle-of-the-road position - generous, gracious and tolerant while being principled. The beauty queen gave a perfect Founders answer to the question.

Posted by: mega at April 26, 2009 10:22 AM

I never heard of any of them either.

I think therein lies the key: nobodies trying to thrust themselves into the public eye, like a cinder. Options to do so: 1) have a sex tape "stolen," and 2) strike a fashionably leftist pose and hope for the best.

The sex tape strategem (aka the Paris Hilton dipsy doodle) has been beaten to death, so the fashionably leftist posing, although also beaten to death, is the only thing keeping these Hollywood wannabees from waiting tables.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 26, 2009 10:47 AM

Fuck off fags. The Storm is getting "worser and Worser". What the fuck kind of language is that?

Posted by: Watching at April 26, 2009 11:14 AM

"Oh come on! This was funny."
I've flushed funnier things down the toilet.
The only "Celebrity" in that video who I consider to be somewhat talented is George Takei (I liked him in 'Heroes'), and even he is generally much more effective in serious or at least semi- serious roles.
The rest are either pathetic nobodies who I wouldn't even call B- Listers, or people I have never even seen before.
"why no story on the great students of Walt Whitman High School shouting down Westboro Baptist Church idiots. For all of the Phelps Cult members actions, I am sure many here would join me in taking them on."
Wow. For once, something we agree on. Indeed, many of us WOULD join you in that respect, because contrary to what much of the Left believes, the vast majority of conservatives, especially those who are devout Christians, despise the Westboro Baptist Church and its actions. It is a "Baptist" church in name only, not affiliated with any of the officially recognized divisions of the Baptist church, even the independent Baptist churches. It has, at most, about 60 members, almost all of whom are related to Fred Phelps in some way. The vast majority of conservative Christians, myself included, view Fred Phelps with even more contempt than we do with Perez Hilton, because Phelps is a lunatic and an embarassment to the Christian faith as a whole. We most definitely do not believe in dishonoring the recently deceased the way Phelps does, and view his funeral protests as despicable, and giving true Christians a bad name.
In fact, the rather conservative (As in, they've joined with patriotic veteran groups in counterprotesting Code Pink's demonstrations at the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Station) biker group the Patriot Guard Riders was initially formed for the main purpose of protecting the mourners at funerals that the Westboro loons choose to attack.

Posted by: Adam at April 26, 2009 11:22 AM

JOHN WAYNE,JIMMY STWART were real men and JOHNNY DEPP AND GEORGE CLOONEY ARE STILL A PAIR OF SPOILED ROTTEN BED WETTERS

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at April 26, 2009 11:42 AM

Adam, I am all for taking the Westboro half-wits to task. I honestly believe for all the nonsense Liberals and Conservatives bicker about, this is one we can agree on. I applaud the students at Walt Whitman High, and I am sure the kid who made the video on Youtube would join us. Maybe Moonbattery, Gregory, my blog, yourself, etc should take these idiots on. I have had it with them! I am certainly not a devout Christian, a Faitheist some say, but their mockery of some pretty good people is a disgrace. Their efforts at funerals of soldiers, AIDS victims, and activists pisses me off to no end. A concise effort from the left and right would likely shut them up. I am in.
I can be contacted at my blog.

There IS a STORM gathering alright AND it's going to bite You libby brain-deads right where you don't want it to!! ;-)

When the left can't offer a logical defense they always TRY to make fun of it.

I too say WHO!? Who are these NO TALENTS trying to be funny? These are idiot no-names trying to make points in the leftist Hollywood circle to get work. THAT is WHO they are. Nobody.

Posted by: TED at April 26, 2009 12:19 PM

To be fair, the blond woman is Eliot in Scrubs, which is still a fairly popular show.

I think the fact that the original advert was the ONLY major outcry against the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa should give an indication of where people view this issue at the moment.

Westboro, I fear, is something that will never go away. Even though members of Phelps' family have left the church, he still seems to have enough money (and, more importantly, attention) to keep doing what he's doing. If the right and the left can't agree on Westboro (and I think they actual do, as much as some on both sides would be loath to admit such), there really is no hope.

Posted by: Ben at April 26, 2009 1:04 PM

"Oh come on! This was funny."

No GHOST, it was somewhere between "dull" and "boring"

YOUR problem is that you thnk you HAVE TO rush to the defence of radical gays before someone whouts "HOMOPHOBE!" in your face. Guilt, the Liberals' first and major failing.

Posted by: KHarn at April 26, 2009 1:15 PM

It may have been funny in the leftist sense of, "It reaffirmed my prejudices and didn't challenge my beliefs in any way."

Fred Phelps, BTW, is a registered Democrat, who endorsed Al Gore in 2000, opposed the Iraq war, and ran for office 3x as a Democrat.

It is no wonder Conservative actors are washed up, you have no sense of humor.
V, your point? David Duke is a Republican, and that does not make him any less despicable. The point I think the students at Walt Whitman High, Adam, and myself were making is that mocking the deaths of American soldiers, AIDS victims and others is intolerable and the left and right agree.

If people were capable of reason, they would question why anyone would value the serial-adultery, drug-using, shallow, sleazy, values-free, less-than-zero culture of Hollywood's opinion on marriage.... or anything else for that matter.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2009 3:45 PM

The homosexual community has gone from being ridiculed,to hiding (in the closet, as it were), to being openly in-your-face, to being accepted, to fully militant. I, personally draw the line at it being required.

Posted by: Cliff47 at April 26, 2009 4:29 PM

Where is the outrage and name calling from these fools when it comes to our dear leader, who shares the exact same view on gay marriage as Ms. CA?

Posted by: Smoke TNT at April 26, 2009 4:37 PM

Their efforts at funerals of soldiers, AIDS victims, and activists pisses me off to no end.

I don't know about their efforts at funerals generally, but anything less than honoring fallen soldiers and I'm with you - they need a good ass-kicking for that.

AIDS victims (unless innocent) and activists are on their own.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 26, 2009 5:23 PM

Was that supposed to be funny? No, seriously.

Posted by: ToddonCapeCod at April 26, 2009 8:36 PM

Damn! That video is seriously gay!

I'm sure if they keep trying they can figure out an intelligent way to promote gay marriage. In the meantime they will have to settle for mindless stupidity.

Good luck morons!!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2009 8:55 PM

I think the real idea here is that:

A: No one of any consequence will see such drivel
B: No one really cares about the "plight" of the Gay Community (since we've long since accepted the idea)
C: Such things are written less for Leftists and solely for us to raise a hue and cry over, so...

I guess I was wrong, the right and the left can't agree on Westboro, if I've read some of the above correctly. I don't think I ever seen anyone outside the church defend the picketing of funerals before.

Posted by: Ben at April 27, 2009 2:49 AM

Not funny; die!

Posted by: Judith M. at April 27, 2009 4:38 AM

I guess I was wrong, the right and the left can't agree on Westboro, if I've read some of the above correctly. I don't think I ever seen anyone outside the church defend the picketing of funerals before.

I don't think I've seen anyone here disagree that they're trash, nor have I seen anyone here defend any of their actions. Maybe you could, you know, share some quotes?

Posted by: cowlove at April 27, 2009 5:13 AM

Tinsletown took to Twitter, as the likes of Shanna Moakler, Giuliana Rancic, Holly Madison and Heidi Montag Tweeted their outrage.

Who?

My thoughts exactly. Guess I'm not "hip" because I don't know who these hacks are nor do I pay much mind to what the good Hollywood opinions may be these days...but then again, I don't pay much attention to a piece of dog shit in the road either.

Posted by: SF at April 27, 2009 5:20 AM

'AIDS victims (unless innocent) and activists are on their own'

So, we're o'kay with them picketing the funerals of people who have died of AIDS? If I've misunderstood this then I apologize, but that seems to be what you're saying. By the concept of AIDS victims being innocent or guilty, I assume you mean that gay people are guilty, whilst heterosexuals are innocent?

Posted by: Ben at April 27, 2009 5:23 AM

I don't know about their efforts at funerals generally, but anything less than honoring fallen soldiers and I'm with you - they need a good ass-kicking for that.

AIDS victims (unless innocent) and activists are on their own.

There's the entire quote you're referencing. I, along with Jay, only know of Westboro's efforts at soldier's funerals, so I can't comment on much else. It seems the other two (AIDS victims and activists) were thrown in for dramatic effect.

And really, getting AIDS as a result of unprotected homosexual activity is hardly something to get up in arms about. It's not like AIDS is a new thing that we don't know anything about, ya know?

Personally, I find protesting outside of any funeral, for any reason, particularly distasteful.

Posted by: cowlove at April 27, 2009 5:40 AM

so much for staying true to your beliefs - i'm proud of this young woman.

incidentally, a few days ago donald trump was on fox and friends and gretchen asked him if her answer to perez' question may have had anything to do with her losing - donald hemmed and hawed a little and stated to the negative - if i were gretchen i would have then asked why don't they just scrub the question part of the pageant? i mean if it doesn't matter...

well, I'm glad we agree that protesting funerals is wrong; I don't think current legislative efforts go far enough - is 500 yards enough for peace of mind during a funeral? I know it's difficult to legislate without violating the First Amendment, but come on, people shouldn't have to think about anything like this when burying their dead.

Posted by: Ben at April 27, 2009 6:14 AM

Ben, being "wrong," or distasteful, does not mean it should be illegal. It's my opinion that we don't need to legislate anything.

However, if these Westboro "baptists" feel the need to make a show of force at funerals, perhaps they should be prepared to have a similar show of force aimed at them. Hundreds of bikers kicking the snot out of them seems fair enough.

Posted by: cowlove at April 27, 2009 6:23 AM

Does that mean you think homosexual marriage should be legal then? It's 'wrong' and 'distasteful' to some?

I think the Patriot Riders are fantastic, but surely we want to avoid fights on the periphery of a funeral? I'm all for countering the Westboro people, but if it was a funeral I was attending I'd rather that I was just left alone. I agree it's a tricky issue though.

Posted by: Ben at April 27, 2009 6:29 AM

Does that mean you think homosexual marriage should be legal then? It's 'wrong' and 'distasteful' to some?

Homosexual marriage does not exist. It is a nonsensical phrase.

Posted by: cowlove at April 27, 2009 7:05 AM

Alicia Silverstone is a PSA against a vegan diet. Holy crap does she look horrible. Eat a steak Alicia! Milk, it does a body good!

Where is the outrage and name calling from these fools when it comes to our dear leader, who shares the exact same view on gay marriage as Ms. CA?

Posted by: Smoke TNT at April 26, 2009 4:37 PM

Well, that has a simple explanation. Leftists know that Ms. CA was speaking the truth of her convictions, knowing full well that she was tanking her chances by do so. She did it anyway.

They also know that Chairman Zero can't vocalize his real beliefs for fear of losing the 'center'. It's ok for him, because he's just pandering, you know?

Honesty & Principles = bad, Lies & Pandering = good. Or at least with moonbats it is. The end justifies the means, after all.

Posted by: hiram at April 27, 2009 7:15 AM

Hollywood does know that both Obama and Hillary are against gay marriage?
Liberals are under the delusion that one can pick up a turd by the clean end

Posted by: JamesJ at April 27, 2009 7:57 AM

You didn't answer my question. If you believe that homosexual marriage in an anachronism, then fine, but in the eyes of the law there is nothing stopping it from becoming legal. Legally, homosexual marriage does exist, whether you like it or not. Therefore, I'll ask again, do you think it should be illegal, considering you've already said that legislation should not be based on people's concept of 'wrong' or 'distasteful'?

Posted by: Ben at April 27, 2009 8:01 AM

Ben, I simply can't answer your question, because it's nonsense.

Perhaps the idea of two donkeys getting married is wrong and distasteful to some. Given that, Ben, do you think donkeysexual marriage should be legal, or illegal? Of course, the question is nonsense, because donkeysexual marriage does not exist.

I see no reason to re-define what marriage objectively is simply to mollify an angry few throwing tantroms. The very fact that a new definition for the word is required should tell you something.

Posted by: cowlove at April 27, 2009 8:19 AM

By the concept of AIDS victims being innocent or guilty, I assume you mean that gay [sic] people are guilty, whilst heterosexuals are innocent?

Correct.

Homosexuals – and IV drug users – brought AIDS on themselves, and I have only a little sympathy for them. They fall in the same category as winners of Darwin Awards. I’m totally sympathetic with people who got AIDS through no fault of their own.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 27, 2009 8:35 AM

well, I'm glad we agree that protesting funerals is wrong; I don't think current legislative efforts go far enough - is 500 yards enough for peace of mind during a funeral? I know it's difficult to legislate without violating the First Amendment, but come on, people shouldn't have to think about anything like this when burying their dead.

We absolutely agree on this. A protest at any funeral is just wrong.

I also agree with my colleague cowlove that we don’t need to legislate what should be common decency. A better solution would be for the cops to take an emergency donut break and let patriotic Americans take care of the problem. It’ll be unseemly, I agree, but if done properly and thoroughly will only have to happen once.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 27, 2009 8:41 AM

If you believe that homosexual marriage in an anachronism, then fine, but in the eyes of the law there is nothing stopping it from becoming legal. Legally, homosexual marriage does exist, whether you like it or not.

First, I don’t get the “anachronism” part. An anachronism is a reference to something at a time it did not exist, such as a Roman Emperor with a BlackBerry. So I’m not clear on what you meant here.

Therefore, I'll ask again, do you think it should be illegal, considering you've already said that legislation should not be based on people's concept of 'wrong' or 'distasteful'?

Absolutely. Laws essentially codify social mores, and therefore reflect people’s views of what is “wrong” or “distasteful.” Crimes such as murder, robbery, etc. are considered “wrong,” and therefore illegal. Other behavior that offends social mores by being considered either “wrong” or “distasteful” is also illegal. Examples: public nudity, and public sex.

Let me turn your question around: do you support criminal sanctions against necrophilia and/or bestiality, and if so (which I fervently hope), why? On what grounds?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 27, 2009 8:53 AM

Jay that's so disappointing. And obviously what should be common decency will always have to be legislated. Stuff like "not killing" should be a common sense decency.

You are surprised, I guess that not everyone is decent? Or horrified that anyone would want to take care of such a problem with a law, instead of an "unseemly" riot to school offenders.

Posted by: Moon bat at April 27, 2009 8:57 AM

" I, along with Jay, only know of Westboro's efforts at soldier's funerals, so I can't comment on much else. It seems the other two (AIDS victims and activists) were thrown in for dramatic effect."
Well, in all fairness, I had also heard that they were planning to protest the funeral of Heath Ledger because even though he was straight in real life, they felt he promoted homosexuality with his role in 'Brokeback Mountain'.
The Westboro church had circulated a flier telling of their intent to protest the funeral and saying all kinds of crude things about Ledger (A few creative Ledger fans, in anticipation of Ledger's role as the Joker in 'The Dark Knight,' parodied the flier by putting online a pretty funny "Jokerized" version of it).
Ultimately, Westboro's plan to protest that funeral failed completely when his (Ledger's) family made the decision to instead hold the funeral in Ledger's home country of Australia.
Still, that was the only non- soldier protest I'm aware of that they planned.

"I think the Patriot Riders are fantastic, but surely we want to avoid fights on the periphery of a funeral?"

The Patriot Riders don't start fights or physically attack the Westboro goons. Here are the only tactics I know of that they use in that regard:
1. Using their motorcade to form a physical perimeter around the funeral, so the Westboro goons can't get too close to the mourners. Often, they further aid in this by carrying big American flags to visually block the view of the Westboro goons so the mourners won't even have to look at them.
2. Drowning out the sound of the Westboro goons' chants and rants by either singing patriotic songs, or revving their bikes' engines.

Posted by: Primate84@aol.com at April 27, 2009 9:07 AM

Jay that's so disappointing. And obviously what should be common decency will always have to be legislated. Stuff like "not killing" should be a common sense decency.

With all due respect, you misunderstood my point. I was saying that refraining from protesting at a funeral should be common decency that should not have to be legislated. I wasn’t saying that common decency generally never had to be legislated. Quite the contrary. See my post upthread re legislation prohibiting acts that people consider “wrong” and/or “distasteful,” per Ben.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 27, 2009 9:16 AM

Or horrified that anyone would want to take care of such a problem with a law, instead of an "unseemly" riot to school offenders.

In general, I prefer legislation as a last resort. We have too many laws already. And consider the difficulty of writing this one. What constitutes a protest, exactly? Chanting? Signs? Standing silently? The papier mache heads so beloved of the communists? How far away must protesters stay?

And what shall be the sanction? A fine? Too easy; they’ll just raise money. Lefties can count on Soros ponying up for them. Jail? For how long? And we have the time and expense of arresting these clowns and trying them, with dubious deterrent effect. A good ass-kicking can’t be taken by Soros (if only), it’s cheap, quick, effective, and reflects natural justice. If I were a cop, I would hit Dunkin’ Donuts while the whomping was administered, and then come back and arrest the whompees for disturbing the peace.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 27, 2009 9:24 AM

Actually, WBC made plans to protest Natasha Richardson's funeral for chairing an AIDS foundation, their disgraceful behavior began with them protesting AIDS victims funerals.Although I am seeing on a few sites that the Westboro idiots may be planning a mass suicide.
http://www.sodahead.com/question/339711/westboro-baptist-church-planning-mass-suicide/

Although I am seeing on a few sites that the Westboro idiots may be planning a mass suicide.

We can only hope.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 27, 2009 9:32 AM

As long as we’re on the subject of inappropriate behavior at funerals, Ghost, appropriate to your handle, I would include turning one into a political rally, as Dems did at Wellstone’s funeral. That was every bit as disgraceful as protesting at a funeral, and for the same reason. A funeral is not the place for political activity. Period. Can we agree on that?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 27, 2009 9:36 AM

Homosexuals – and IV drug users – brought AIDS on themselves, and I have only a little sympathy for them. They fall in the same category as winners of Darwin Awards.

1. We have known since 1984 how AIDS is transmitted. The people who caught it prior to 1984 are dead. If people get AIDS from sex or sharing needles, they are responsible for their own condition.

2. There is a part of the Homosexual subculture that fetishizes the deliberate infecting of one's self and others with HIV. Look to websites like Bugshare-dot-net, or Bareback City, if you doubt it.

Jay, absolutely we can agree on that. It was at his memorial, not his actual funeral.Alot of Minnesotans made it clear about the behavior there would not be tolerated. The most outspoken in their disgust were Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, both whom were very close with Paul Wellstone.

Great. I'm glad we agree. And thanks for the correction. I didn't remember it was actually his memorial, not his funeral. But the principle remains the same.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 27, 2009 9:57 AM

"Let me turn your question around: do you support criminal sanctions against necrophilia and/or bestiality, and if so (which I fervently hope), why? On what grounds?"

Well, I would argue that whilst gay marriage is something that can exist between two consenting adults, necrophilia is infringing the rights of the person who died, their family etc, and bestiality is animal cruelty. That I abhor both these things should not be these things should not be the reason to legislate against them.

Again, re: Westboro, I know the Patriot Riders don't start fights, and that their intentions are good, but I don't see how the revving of engines etc is gonna make the person whose being buried family feel better. I'm afraid I don't have any solution to offer here, although if the mass suicide happens....

AIDS:

AIDS infects indiscriminately, regardless of sexuality, so quite how gay people 'brought it on themselves' is not clear. The higher instance of AIDS among homosexuals is the result of an admittedly poor attitude towards the use of condoms in the 1980s, partly borne out of misconceptions about the nature of the virus and the fact that since there is no chance of pregnancy, condoms were not seen as necessary. The disparity in infection rates is the result of this early failure to appreciate the dangers of AIDS.

Most AIDS cases are in Africa, and are the result of unsafe heterosexual contact:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3225742

Do you therefore also have no sympathy with people who have lung cancer from smoking, heart disease from unhealthy diets, liver failure from too much drinking, skin cancer from overexposure to the sun, or for any of the other myriad diseases that are caused by personal actions.

Posted by: Ben at April 27, 2009 10:30 AM

Well, I would argue that whilst gay marriage is something that can exist between two consenting adults, necrophilia is infringing the rights of the person who died, their family etc, and bestiality is animal cruelty.

I’d call that a nice scramble to pull a philosophical fig leaf over the issue and avoid saying the words: these things are illegal, and quite rightly, because they offend society. There. That’s not so hard.

To take this to a ridiculous extreme, imagine that the deceased had provided while alive that he wanted to participate in necrophilia after death (probably a San Francisco resident), and his family had no objection. Would it be OK then? Of course not. It’s still offensive, and repugnant, even to people who have connection to the event or the participants. (“We have no business legislating what people do in the privacy of their own mortuaries.” Oh yes, we do.) It outrages decent society – that’s why it’s illegal. Nothing to do with the rights of the deceased or his family.

Similar arguments obtain regarding bestiality. Bestiality has been outlawed for millennia, for reasons that have nothing to do with animal cruelty. It was behavior that outraged society. Simple as that.

The only other argument you could make for forbidding necrophilia and bestiality (and the one I thought you’d make) was public health. But that argument also makes for prohibition of (especially male) homosexuality. Male homosexuals are notorious for harboring and spreading disease (not just AIDS, but genital herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, and hepatitis B – the last of which epidemiologists originally used to model AIDS transmission, because it too affects primarily homosexuals and IV drug users.) In fact, I suspect that public health was the driving force behind Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality (just as it was in, e.g., dietary laws). Normal sexual relations are channeled and controlled by women, whereas men will screw anything that will stand still long enough. Unchecked male homosexuality guarantees an epidemiological nightmare should any disease ever gain a foothold among them, as we have seen.

AIDS infects indiscriminately, regardless of sexuality, so quite how gay people 'brought it on themselves' is not clear. The higher instance of AIDS among homosexuals is the result of an admittedly poor attitude towards the use of condoms in the 1980s, partly borne out of misconceptions about the nature of the virus and the fact that since there is no chance of pregnancy, condoms were not seen as necessary. The disparity in infection rates is the result of this early failure to appreciate the dangers of AIDS.

Most AIDS cases are in Africa, and are the result of unsafe heterosexual contact:

Couple points. First, homosexuals brought it on themselves through their promiscuity and recklessness, as well as the factors you cited. They fought bitterly to keep the bathhouses open long after they were suspected of hastening the spreading of disease. As detailed in Randy Shilts’s book (when Shilts wasn’t busy blaming Reagan), Patient Zero admitted – actually he bragged – that he’d had thousands of partners in the preceding three years. That’s how you spread a disease like wildfire.

Second, implicitly we’re talking about AIDS and such here, not in Africa, since it’s here – not in Africa - that homosexual marriage is an issue.

Third, note that Africa has a high rate of heterosexual disease because...anal sex is a major form of contraception there. That piece of information makes the whole picture snap into sharp focus, doesn’t it?

That I abhor both these things should not be these things should not be the reason to legislate against them.

Of course it is. Upthread it was suggested that we should have legislation against protests at funerals. (I don’t oppose such legislation, but consider a good (unofficially delivered) ass-kicking a faster, more effective, and more just expedient.) Why? Because most people find such behavior abhorrent, and the purpose of the law is to provide for a stable society.

Think about it: that’s the common denominator of all law. Murder, rape, robbery, and assault are illegal and punished because if they aren’t, blood feuds result. Contracts are enforceable in the courts to make commerce possible and again, avoid bloodshed. (Look at drug dealers, who have no resort to the courts to enforce their contracts.) Marriage is provided for in law as a matter of public policy, to stabilize families, the basic social unit, and thereby to promote the care of children – the future of society.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 27, 2009 12:56 PM

First off, the Primate84@aol.com post yesterday was written by me. That is normally what I put as my fake email address. I accidentally put it in the "Name" line instead.

"2. There is a part of the Homosexual subculture that fetishizes the deliberate infecting of one's self and others with HIV. Look to websites like Bugshare-dot-net, or Bareback City, if you doubt it."

Indeed. I'd definitely draw a distinction between those kinds of people contracting AIDS, and some poor kid in Africa who unwittingly gets it from drinking contaminated well water, or an American teen who unwittingly contracts HIV from receiving a transfusion of contaminated blood.

"Although I am seeing on a few sites that the Westboro idiots may be planning a mass suicide."
And, see, that further points out that they should in no way be connected with Christianity as a whole, since pretty much all Christian denominations view suicide as the quickest possible way to Hell.

Posted by: Adam at April 28, 2009 5:46 AM

Jay, you make some good points, but societies mores are always changing. Not too long ago marriage between races was abhorrent and illegal, and isn't any longer. Women were not considered intelligent enough to vote, and it was illegal.

And before anyone jumps on me for saying that, I'm not implying ANYONE is racist, or sexist, I'm just supplying a fairly parallel argument.

I don't care about gay marriage, and I bet most homosexuals don't either. But I bet they don't care to be likened to the sick acts mentioned above either. Thousands of species of animals in the wild are found to exhibit same-sex coupling. Perhaps we should legislate against the wild as well.

Regarding the Westboro freaks, they are on your side of the fence folks, so if I have to take responsibility for all things liberal, own up to your own fringe elements. They are there, and they claim to be on your side.

Posted by: Moon bat at April 28, 2009 10:18 AM

Moon bat, I think by your rules we're both going to have to "own" the Westboro idiots. They hate the military, hate America, hate gays, hate Catholics, hate Jews, etc. etc. Someone else pointed out that Phelps ran for office as a Democrat, but I haven't been able to find anything factually stating that. I also haven't looked too hard, mostly because I don't care. They have been opposed by conservatives and liberals alike, so why don't we call it a wash? The sooner these people fade into the dustbin of history, the better, in my humble opinion.

I understand where you're coming from with your opinions on this site. But dude, the site is called Moonbattery.com, not RationalDebateofPoliticalPolicy.com, ya know? Van points out a lot of really, really stupid stuff that you can bet your ass didn't originate from a conservative.

All I'm saying is pick your battles. You want to talk about Specter flopping over? We should have at it. You want to get in a tizzy over an inflatable shower? Well, whatever, but understand the vast majority of us see things like that and just say, "stupid hippies." If you feel the views of these stupid hippies don't represent you, then why bother?